HomeMy WebLinkAboutJOHNSON PROPERTY REZONE - 32-01 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17, 2001
Page 16
corner of the site; further, to adopt a structure map consistent with that
zoning structure. Motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Torgerson notes that the findings must include a need for the proposed
amendment and that it promotes the public welfare. He expressed concern that
extra density in the LMN area did not promote the public welfare.
Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Craig: To adopt the Structure Plan as it
stands, with the exception of leaving RC where it is and putting UE where it was
placed in the original Structure Plan, with MMN and I the way it is.
Discussion revolved around the map. Mr. Gavaldon summarized that UE would
expand to the railroad tracks; LMN is on the west area; MMN, RC, and I remain
the same. Mr. Bernth noted that the zoning would result in people living in very
expensive houses and exposed to odors, as opposed to people in mid -level
houses exposed to odors. The houses being next to a wastewater plant is a
matter for the buyer rather than the Board.
Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Craig: To recommend approval of
the Structure Plan as redrawn, i.e., Scenario B, with Industrial in the upper
left-hand corner as per the current Structure Plan. In response to questions,
Mr. Eckman: stated that findings are not needed on the Structure Plan.
Mr. Gavaldon stated that this is not the best plan that can be developed but the
one that results from the time frame needed to meet the applicant's right to be
heard at this meeting.
Mr. Torgerson stated that he supported the motion because there is a concern
about supporting the public welfare.
Motion approved unanimously.
Moved by Mr. Colton, seconded by Ms. Craig: To match the zoning to the
approved Structure Plan; further, to adopt Staff Findings Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11,
12, and 13. Mr. Eckman noted the clarification that the motion recommends
adoption of the zoning plan to match to the Structure Plan as amended,
consistent with the comprehensive plan, if adopted by Council.
Motion approved unanimously.
Project: 450 North College Rezoning, #34-01
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17, 2001
Page 15
Following a recess, the applicant pointed out the buffer line. Of the 33-acre
parcel, half of it will be farm and buffer. The other half would still be industrial
use, and the applicant is not sure that is the appropriate zoning next to the farm.
The line should be the buffer and should not impose an industrial use next to the
farm and next to residential. The railroad and Timberline act as true buffers, but
there is no set buffer between the proposed industrial and residential.
Staff stated that the area that contains the farm complex and the buffer placed
around it contains less area than exists in the Structure Plan's I designation. By
retaining I on the Structure Plan, it takes a larger area for that than originally
foreseen. The boundaries will be set by the Structure Plan. Ms. Craig stated that
industrial uses would be appropriate with the farm and buffer. Neighborhood
compatibility would be allowed in the I zone, and Staff would not let in
incompatible uses.
Ms. Craig continued that many uses would be compatible with and enhance the
farm. She does not wish to isolate industrial across the street, and wants to keep
industrial space available. Mr. Colton stated that he would be willing to trade I
zoning for LMN in order to move the UE back to where it was on the Structure
Plan. The LMN being so close to the wastewater treatment would generate
complaints; the UE would be a more compatible use.
Mr. Torgerson inquired how the 1,000-foot minimum buffer translates to an effect
on the neighborhood. Wastewater staff replied that the fewer residences that are
close, the greater the buffer, the better it will be. No numbers are available, not
even as estimates. A comprehensive odor study is being done but is not
completed. Mr. Torgerson shared Mr. Colton's concern with density near sewer
lines. Ms. Craig noted that people in Rigden Farm are complaining about the
smell.
Mr. Gavaldon invited a motion. Discussion centered around clearly
communicating the intent of the Board to Council. Mr. Gavaldon said that four
findings of fact are agreed upon, as articulated on the map. The drawing shows
appropriate designations per the structure map; three out of five Board members
expressed support with regard to the LMN.
Moved by Mr. Bernth: That the proposed zoning map, Revision 4, would
result in a logical and orderly development pattern because of the
proposed configuration of the zoned district boundaries, and would
promote a transition of intensity from the top of the high -intensity uses at
the southwest corner of the site and lower -intensity uses at the southeast
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17, 2001
Page 14
industrial park, next to an arterial, so the transition to the river isn't occurring. Mr.
Gavaldon agreed with LMN and noted that the transition goes to Johnson Farm
in reverse.
Mr. Torgerson inquired as to Finding No. 4. Wastewater has been trying to buy
the property for 15 years; why has the 1,000-foot buffer not come up earlier?
Staff at Wastewater stated that it had previously pointed out planned
infrastructure and expansion and utilities. There were no numbers at the time
regarding a buffer. There is a semicircle of City property, and they have not
succeeded in acquisition into Rigden Farm and Johnson Farm. Wastewater saw
development coming and changed direction to negotiate whatever could be
obtained. It was after that point that the consultant informed Wastewater about
the 1,000-foot buffer.
Board consensus was to keep Finding No. 4 with RC zoning, without conditions.
1. The Board reached consensus in agreeing with Staff on Finding No 5.
Finding No 5. states that the proposed MMN and LMN zoning configurations
are consistent with the elements of the proposed Structure Plan amendment
that staff supports and, assuming Council amends these components of the
Structure Plan as recommended, the portion of the site which has proposed
rezoning from T to MMN and LMN is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
2. There was general board consensus on Item No. 6. Mr. Colton expressed his
desire for more area to be kept UE. Finding No. 6 states that the proposed
UE zoning configuration (as proposed on the applicants "preferred
alternative") is not consistent with the Structure Plan amendment supported
by staff and is therefore not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Craig agreed with Staff that the proposed UE is not consistent with the
Structure Plan but does not agree with any implication that Staff supports leaving
UE as -is on the Structure Plan. Staff mentioned two applicable criteria; that the
zoning be consistent with the Structure Plan, and the zoning be appropriate for
the property.
In further discussion concerning process and general desires of all involved, Mr.
Gavaldon again expressed frustration and apologies with the speed of the
process and the lack of preparation and background. He stated that the Board
would nevertheless work through this in the best manner possible and meet the
applicant's rights.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17, 2001
Page 13
preservation of farm buildings and the resulting various possibilities. Staff now
questions removal of the I zone, in processing the presentations and the Board's
concerns.
The applicant noted that the uses as set forth in the Structure Plan and as
needed on the property can be met by either I or LMN. The applicant has no
particular preference; Staff expressed a concern about the boundary for
historical purposes. The ultimate boundary needs to meet the property's needs.
The applicant inquired whether the boundary between I and LMN can remain
flexible, to be determined in discussions among the applicant, Staff, and
historical preservation, or whether the line needs to be set tonight. Mr. Eckman
stated that this is a recommendation, and latitude can be used in the type of
recommendation. The applicant approved of a concept that a buffer can be a
transition for land use rather than a set demarcation. Therefore, restrictions can
be placed within buffers. Staff noted that there is leeway within the buffer for
historical preservation, so it does not necessarily have to go through modification
of standards.
Mr. Eckman stated that the Board can make a recommendation that is not
graphic. There is not a convenient way to graph this out and draw lines to make
a decision tonight, so the process may result in some trust being placed with
Staff and the applicant to draw appropriate lines before review by Council.
The Board reached consensus to leave Industrial as -is on the structure map.
Staff noted that the I zone allows mixed -use dwelling uses and boarding houses.
The Structure Plan map retaining its present industrial zoning would mean that
residential is constrained to those limited uses. Mr. Colton noted that "mixed use"
is wide open, and discussion ensued concerning the ramifications of the zoning.
Mr. Mapes stated that the present uses would remain. No further issue was
raised with retaining the industrial zone as per the Structure Plan.
Ms. Craig and Mr. Colton did not wish to change UE to LMN. Mr. Bernth
disagreed on several bases: Infill development; promoting density; allowances
are made with enough open space to cover the increased intensive use for those
47 acres. The applicant is asking for a change that applies to 20-25% of the land
involved.
Ms. Craig inquired how many more units will be in the valley in the most current
scenario over the Structure Plan. Staff estimated that 95 acres of UE results in
190 units. 47 acres of LMN results in 235 to 376 units, depending on a density
from three to five units per acre. Ms. Craig stated that this area is in the 500-year
floodplain, and higher density will put more people in the transition. Mr.
Torgerson stated that LMN is appropriate here. This is across the tracks from an
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17, 2001
Page 12
Staff stated that all scenarios would fit the requirements of the farm sites. The
applicant agreed and offered to put that intent into writing. The applicant
preferred Scenario C as more consistent with the Structure Plan.
Staff inquired of the reasons for advocating RC over UE. If the land is not
suitable for development — e.g., in sewer areas, the valley wall, farm, and areas
representing the river valley - the purposes are then nailed down by the RC zone
and UE would not be applicable. RC is directly applicable and would avoid
applying conditions to the zone.
The applicant was in agreement as long as there was not additional UE
requested beyond that proposed in Scenario C. The amended scenario would
reserve the blue area as RC, with the rest of the crosshatching reserved as UE.
Mr. Torgerson mused if the condition of no dwelling units is applied, the park
area would be more affordable for City purchase. Mr. Eckman cautioned the
Board not to make a decision based upon affordability for the City but rather in
conformance with good planning and zoning concepts.
Mr. Colton stated the following: No development other than UE within the valley
wall was in the original Structure Plan. Trading density was used in Rigden Farm,
and he would resist having that procedure set a precedent. There is a need for
more UE and large lots. The developer's concern about salability is not
worrisome in the light of the desire of people to buy those properties. There is no
reason to deviate from the Structure Plan. Although RC came up recently, it
serves the appropriate purpose of buffering from incompatible uses. The
developer's concern of unmarketable properties due to high water tables and
sewage smells is not a concern for the Board's determination and not a reason
to change the Structure Plan. Scenario B is preferable.
Ms. Craig stated the following: The findings of fact and conclusions lay out the
zone issues well. Discussion was held whether to address the Staff's report item
by item. Mr. Torgerson noted that such a discussion would not result in a map.
Moved by Ms. Craig, seconded by Mr. Bernth: To recommend approval of Staff's
Finding No. 1 for removal of the neighborhood commercial center. Mr. Gavaldon
recommended packaging an approval on Finding No. 1 into a blanket motion, in
order to escape the process of making many motions, item by item. There was
general Board consensus in agreeing to Finding No. 1.
Mr. Gavaldon inquired as to Finding No. 2. General discussion was held on an
Industrial designation, with anecdotes as to the available supply. Staff has been
reviewing uses in the I zone. Many of the uses could fit well on the farmstead.
The supply of industrial sites are many and varied. This is a unique site with the
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17, 2001
Page 11
through designation of the river corridor and the installation of buffers. This will
allow retention of perhaps 1100 units on a property that could be zoned for up to
1600. The applicant has listened to every single request and has dealt with it.
Tonight continues that process; it is unfortunate that it is occurring in front of the
Board.
Mr. Bemth commented on the efforts within the city to increase density, with
increased density as a benefit and noted that this plan is attempting to do that.
Ms. Craig stated that because this is in the Poudre River Corridor Plan, it is
designed to go from lower density to higher density. Rigden Farm was not
originally zoned in its present condition. The reason for the UE designation is for
lower density along the valley wall. The vote on Rigden Farm set a precedent in
the area for higher density. The whole intent of the Structure Plan, as assembled
not only by Planning and Zoning Board and Staff and Council, but many others,
was to take a plan not lot by lot, but area by area, with the purpose of UE as a
transition. The wastewater buffer issue is brand-new. Designating a zone as RC
is appropriate and takes out conditions. It fits the structure map and meets the
State statutes.
Mr. Bernth stated that there are changed conditions, and the applicant is
responding to those. Some mechanism, either UE or RC must be in place to
meet the requirements. He inquired as to the acreage in UE that will now be
LMN.
The applicant stated that previously, UE was 95 acres in the Structure Plan.
Probably less than half would transition from UE to LMN. While the Structure
Plan was looked at area by area, it may not have been viewed in terms of the
market. Homes in UE are large -lot. It is very difficult to sell large -lot homes next
to wastewater treatment and industrial uses. The developer cannot feasibly put
large lots next to those uses, and the shallow groundwater table would interfere
with any basements.
Mr. Bemth inquired if the issue is 47 acres of UE or LMN. Staff noted that no
dwelling units or adaptive use of farm units could exist on the crosshatched area
on the map. Staff inquired as to the following: If the UE on the Structure Plan is
roughly 95 acres; approximately half of that would have no units; is the other half
then to increase to LMN density as a balance for removing dwelling units from
UE? The applicant affirmed that notion. The blue (proposed RC) area is about 32
acres. About 50 of the 94 acres would be UE.
There was discussion whether neighborhood parks are permitted in the RC
zone, with the conclusion that they are. The applicant noted their desire to
maintain the look of the Structure Plan as an important element to the Board.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17, 2001
Page 10
Staff offered a point of clarification as to the thousand -foot buffer area. No
residential will be allowed, but also any habitable structure is not allowed. No
commercial uses are allowed. There will probably be a retention plan. Some
uses in the Urban Estate would not be appropriate for that area. The applicant
does not intend those uses to be placed there and is agreeable to that
restriction. If the adjacent farm is developed for certain uses, trails may be
needed for that portion of the property.
Staff is in agreement if the farmstead is adapted to residence, but would not
want new residences put in. Staff doesn't want residential in the buffer zone, and
the applicant addresses that with the placement of the park. Conditional zoning
would need to apply in order to have no residential units in the proposed park
area, with universal agreement on resolving this. The park use cannot be
specifically tied to that area; it becomes an ODP issue.
Since the addition of the 40-acre zone to the wastewater plant, the City may
have the obligation to pay for that property, since it must be designated as
undevelopable. Mr. Eckman verified that this is not an issue for the Board to
consider as a development cost.
In response to questioning, the applicant affirmed the desire for decision at this
hearing.
Mr. Colton questioned the justification for LMN zoning below the valley wall. On
the Structure Plan, it is kept Urban Estate. This change just puts in more houses,
which is not a good justification. He inquired of the reasons for Urban Estate as
opposed to RC.
The applicant was agreeable to RC zone in the corner area. Mr. Colton stated
that he did not understand the justification for making LMN into UE. The
applicant was confused last week with a new river corridor designation request.
This afternoon. the applicant then heard that there was concern about a drastic
change from the Structure Plan. The land remaining as UE is more in
conformance with land use and the Structure Plan. The lines are different; LMN
is below the river wall; there are changes, but the applicant is trying to maintain
the essence of the Structure Plan in light of all the requirements placed on the
applicant.
The applicant referred to a year ago, before the extent of compounds, buffers,
slope bank preservation, 10-acre park requirement, thousand -foot buffer, and
other issues were made known. While these issues are not the concern of the
Planning and Zoning Board, every new restriction further handicaps the
development of the site. This plan seeks to regain some of the density lost
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17, 2001
Page 9
Industrial to the north, Urban Estates to the south, with a buffer to the
wastewater treatment plant. The intent was to maneuver the lines softly, keeping
the intent of the land use, but with different boundaries. The idea was also to
look at the total site in concept of highest use rather than the broad scope of the
Structure Plan. There is no problem in designating industrial to the north. The
origination of that process was a City request to reduce some of the issues that
were seen.
The applicant met with the City and consultants on the site in a workshop,
working out locations of a compound and buffers, with a full proposal on the way.
The right direction is being sought, and the actual designation of this portion,
whether LMN or industrial, does not matter so much to the use. The property will
either be sold off or donated as a nonprofit.
Mr. Gavaldon expressed concern about designing in -process at a Board
meeting, using four iterations of the plan. Since Friday's work session, other
iterations have been developed. He inquired about other options if the Board is
not comfortable in proceeding with a particular plan.
Mr. Eckman advised that under T zoning, the petition is to be considered unless
time restrictions are waived by the petitioner. The Board may support Staff's,
applicant's, or its own proposal. The Board cannot continue with T zoning and
cannot postpone consideration of zoning. Mr. Gavaldon expressed his
dissatisfaction with any finding without proper review in order to carefully
consider and study and gather an understanding of the project. .
Mr. Eckman further advised that the Transition zone does not have great latitude
for possible uses. The property needs to be taken out of T zone quickly so that it
does not constitute a taking of the property. This is a "holding" zone in the face of
uncertainty, but once brought up for zoning, it needs to be decided upon
expeditiously. This is a recommendation, with Council making the final decision,
relying on the Board's judgment.
The applicant stated that this was not their preferred manner of doing business,
with particular note taken of receiving information as late as 3:00 p.m. on this
hearing date.
Staff stated that the City will not have to buy anything it was not going to buy
already, i.e., the neighborhood park. That is a requirement to provide to the City.
The neighborhood park is a purchase of a 10-acre neighborhood park, as per the
practice anywhere else in town. The black hash mark on the hastily drawn map
will be Urban Estate, regardless of underlying color in that map. It will have no
residential, will provide the required buffer from wastewater, with no residential in
the park, no residential in the farm area, and no residential in the valley wall.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17, 2001
Page 8
4) Provide architectural diversity, with seven or eight architectural types, to
provide unique looks and textures to the neighborhoods and streets.
Those strategies are mostly CDP oriented but presented to show that there is
deeper thinking than mere rezoning.
The first application had an Industrial placement. The line went through the barn,
which was not the real intent. Since then, the applicant removed Industrial and
maintained it Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood. Requirements were
changed recently concerning the river corridor concept. The applicant was told
as late as 3:00 p.m. today that redesign was needed, in that an Urban Estate
buffer is needed to buffer the river corridor.
As a result of that notification, and with quick work in the car on the drive to Fort
Collins, a Scenario C (later referred to as "Revision 3") was proposed to further
redefine zonings. The black crosshatched area would be Urban Estate, with the
conditions that 1) no residential development will be in that boundary; 2), the
neighborhood park would be placed between the preserved Johnson farm and
the 1,000-foot buffer. This satisfies the concerns of matching the existing
Structure Plan, not introducing a new district, and not interfering with the zoning
district.
Under this plan, LMN does come down farther than the original Structure Plan.
The applicant wishes to save the valley wall and its elements, both natural and
historic. This way, it places those elements in a district that is already within the
Structure Plan. Residential would be moved out of the 1,000-foot buffer. An
overview was shown regarding these elements with roads overlain in the plan.
Public input was invited. None was offered.
Questions and discussion by the Board, Staff, and Applicant.
Ms. Craig stated that there is not a compelling reason to change the Urban
Estate to LMN or Industrial to LMN. The applicant discussed with Staff the
purpose of the Structure Plan and its genesis. The Structure Plan is a broad -
based interpretation of community development. In looking closer at the site with
the wastewater plant, the railroad tracks, the adjacent industrial uses, a more
detailed higher use was seen rather than the broad -based plan. Rigden Farm
was not required to do a Structure Plan, but its differences between the
development plan and Structure Plan were huge.
The applicant took information from the workshop, the Structure Plan, and
development in other communities to see how the Structure Plan could be
implemented, in balance with community needs. The original concept had
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17, 2001
Page 7
Applicant's presentation. Jim Postal, president of James Company, has the
Johnson property under option. This is his fifth development in the city.
The zoning cannot be separated from the ODP and planning purposes. A slide
was shown of the neighborhood. The property is interesting, with Timberline as a
major arterial, creating a significant impact on residential property and
demanding higher densities. The neighborhood commercial in Rigden Farm
satisfies the commercial needs for this property. The industrial area across the
tracks fits the industrial zoning well.
The developer went to the City about a year ago in the early planning stages for
a design meeting. It helped the applicant to focus on a direction for the property.
Many studies have been done regarding a plethora of potential impacts over the
period of planning for this property.
An intensive effort was made to include the Cargill property in the planning. They
chose to exclude themselves.
Two farmsteads are included. The properties are in poor condition, but the
developer wishes to work with the City on the appropriate avenues.
The development factors are negative and challenging and require very creative
land planning by experts in that area and with regard to the surrounding uses. It
has taken a year to get to this point in the planning process. A disappointment
occurred with the latest requirement for a buffer zone from the sewer plant,
particularly in light of the request at the beginning of the process to be informed
of all applicable rules. A buffer and detention plan was initially incorporated in the
plan. The iterations of the plan and the time it took to get to this point were not
the result of the applicant's actions.
Susan Wade, of Downing, Thorpe & James, spoke of the plan. The design intent
of the issues is probably more appropriate for ODP. She said that four design
strategies were to be illustrated, with concept images presented:
1) Create a community with heart or core, using circulation and open
space elements to create one or perhaps two cores or hearts, gathering places,
to bring the neighborhood together.
2) Provide unique and identifiable sub -neighborhood districts, based on
densities, open space elements, and architectural massing.
3) Provide neighborly edges. The long railroad track was cited as an
example.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17, 2001
Page 6
Regardless of zoning, the farm will be saved? It is required to be preserved. The
grouping of buildings and area features were shown on an aerial photo. The
features to be saved were shown and the potential buffer areas displayed. The
ODP is under review, and a historic consultant is helping with research on the
issue. Nothing has been finalized with regard to historic buffer issues, and it is
presently part of the ODP.
Ms. Craig drew an analogy to the farmhouse on Rigden, which was simply
moved. Troy Jones replied that the farmhouse was moved, as a result of the
Streets Department needs. The proposed six lanes of the Timberline arterial will
meander enough to miss the farmhouse.
Ms. Craig did not perceive a good justification for changing the Structure Plan
map, especially with industrial on both sides. Mr. Torgerson noted that industrial
includes nurseries and animal uses. The farm could not function as a farm in
LMN. He asked from historical preservation if it would be better served in
industrial. Staff agreed to that from a historical preservation view. For a working
farm, a lot of land is needed, and not enough will be saved here to accomplish
that. A veterinarian facility and a small herb farm have been looked at; a working
farm is unlikely. Mr. Torgerson mused whether those uses would be more
appropriate, as well as small business office uses. Those things are involved in
Industrial but not LMN.
Staff noted that the applicant had come in with a truncated industrial area that
bisected the farm and went through the barn, with the barn then being in two
zones. Staff's concern was a potential battle over the buffer. Making it all one
zone seemed to eliminate that battle. Mr. Torgerson noted that the present
Industrial zone does not bisect the barn.
Mr. Bernth asked what the farm needs in order to maintain its character? Staff
responded that rather than hard and fast acreage, it needs significant buildings,
outbuildings, and ground features, including pens and pit silos, with an
appropriate buffer. No acreage numbers have been solidified. Staff is consulting
in regard to legal underpinnings and like situations in other communities. A 500-
foot buffer has been recommended, which would be a majority of the 33 acres,
or about 20 or 25 acres.
Ms. Craig inquired into Urban Estate for this area. Staff did not look at that
possibility. Staff looked at the manipulation of the boundary and took into
account the integration of the slope into the zones. Rezoning was seen as an
extension of the larger neighborhood.
There are two farmsteads: the Jessup and Johnson farms. These areas were
shown on the aerial photo. The second farm is not within the buffer.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17, 2001
Page 5
The rezoning portion follows the Structure Plan amendment as being the
appropriate zoning decided upon in the Structure Plan review.
Various members of the Staff were made available at the meeting in the event of
questions that included their individual specialties.
In response to questions by the Board, Staff displayed the T zone, the
surrounding area, and where the industrial zone designation comes across on
the Structure Plan. 33.4 acres are involved. Staff recommends placing LMN
between two industrial areas.
Staff supported the change from industrial to LMN without a city-wide census of
available industrial zones. There is no indication of a shortage of industrial zoned
properties in the city. Ms. Craig stated that the city needs warehouses and like
developments. There is a fear that if industrial zones are eliminated, more
eliminations will follow, and those elements will be needed.
Staff perceived nothing significant in terms of a loss of industrial space. The
applicants are willing to protect the farm, which is contained in industrial area.
There is some push -and -pull involved on what is preserved. The applicant does
not wish to use the farmstead or immediate surrounding area for industrial
purposes. It did not seem to follow that the City should defend and stick to the
industrial designation, given that the farmstead would not fit with an industrial
description. No real future for industrial use exists at the site. The farm will
probably be protected as part of the neighborhood, as more logically an
extension of the neighborhood rather than as industrial space.
Another concern expressed is that the industrial zone designation might define a
de facto preservation of the farm, but there is other criteria that preservation
concerns look at. The outcome of the historic preservation might result in the
preserved farm line and buffer being about the same place. Ultimately, the area
did not seem to fit the definition of an industrial zone.
Ms. Craig asked how the established industrial would impact the LMN zone and
whether there will be complaints of the residences that impact the industrial area,
with the concern that this will further deplete the adjacent industrial area. Staff
referred to ordinance language: If the neighborhood is built by a pre-existing
noise source, it is up to the neighborhood's developer to deal with the issue.
Staff is not concerned about losing the farm; it is not seen as an industrial use.
When a historic buffer is looked at, the dimensions are unknown; but when
placed between LMN and Industrial, the defining line should not be that buffer. It
seemed more logical to zone LMN on both sides of the buffer and make it
subject to ODP.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17, 2001
Page 4
certain size of commercial area was envisioned. The red -dot commercial zone
was satisfied by the Rigden Farm zoning.
The next item may not technically need the Structure Plan, but it is included as
part of the overall scope of the project. The MMN arc did not have a fixed
boundary but was envisioned as a concept. The applicant proposed, in line with
Staff's request, to move the MMN zone to the corner to provide transition.
The next item would eliminate the industrial designation on the northern section.
This section is abutted by two different industrial uses and was zoned as part of
a broad -brush stroke for consistent zoning. Timberline will be developed up to a
six -lane arterial. The railroad provides a barrier from the northern portion to other
industrial sites. There is also a historic farm site on this section. The industrial
uses across Timberline have greatly lessened in industrial profile.
Staff feels that the northern farmstead should be included in the LMN zone. This
would further make the subject area more compatible with uses other than
industrial use.
The next items are less uncontroversial. The urban estate boundary was shown
contrasting the existing plan to the proposed plan. The applicant proposed a shift
along this boundary between urban estate and LMN.
There is a need to buffer the wastewater plant from incompatible uses. The State
specifies a 1,000-foot buffer for intensive uses. A gray zone was shown at the
eastern extremity with RC, or the least intensive, zone. This is the Staff proposal.
The Board directed Staff to show options beyond that proposed. Scenario A
(later referred to as "Revision 1 ") was displayed with the RC zoning shown,
Urban Estate for the area proposed, and LMN and MMN for the remaining
portions.
Scenario B (later referred to as "Revision 2") proposed the line between LMN
and UE remain as shown on the Structure Plan, with the lower portions of the
property becoming RC and MMN.
Staff noted that the applicant wished to propose other alternatives.
The Land Use Code is very specific with T, transition zone, giving owners a
timely right to rezone according to the Code. Negotiations have continued with
the applicant for quite some time and they have been continued from prior
hearings that they were entitled to, in terms of timing. The Staff does not have
the authority to ask for delays under T zoning.
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17, 2001
Page 3
designations from the site, and to slightly
modify the boundary line between Urban
Estate and Low Density Mixed Use
Residential.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Council to amend the Structure Plan in
accordance with the diagram titled, "Staff's Recommended Configuration."
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Council to amend the Zoning Map in
accordance with the diagram titled, "Staff's Recommended Configuration."
Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence:
Ms. Carpenter declared a conflict and excused herself from this portion of the
meeting. A recess was taken while the applicants were gathered.
Troy Jones presentation. The site is roughly 217 acres. It is immediately north of
the Rigden Farm development. The Board is to consider two items: A Structure
Plan amendment and a rezoning. The site is currently zoned T, transition. South
of the site is Rigden Farm. Other zones immediately adjacent to the property:
NC, MMN, with LMN providing a transition farther south. RC is at the northeast
corner, with I, industrial, and E, employment, zones to the north.
The site has a feature called the "valley wall." This is a defining bank for the
valley area of the Poudre River. The wall defines a lower and higher elevation of
the property.
A set of buildings was pointed out that comprises the Drake Waste Water
Treatment Facility, with plans to expand to a nearby pond.
Structure Plan Amendment. The current plan was demonstrated. Neighborhood
commercial zoning presently exists in a corner, surrounded with an arc of MMN.
Farther from the NC core is LMN, low -density mixed use. An upper corner of the
site is zoned I, industrial. The eastern portion of the site is designated UE, Urban
Estate.
The first three elements of the application are noncontroversial. The applicant
responded positively to Staff's requests. When the Structure Plan was originally
adopted, it could be moved south or north of the intersection or straddle it, but a
Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting of September 17, 2001
Page 2
FOSSIL CREEK REVIEW
Pursuant to Board request, Staff offered a brief presentation of the transfer
development unit program being implemented in the Fossil Creek area. The
West Chase annexation is one of the items on the consent agenda. A quarter
section of land is being annexed. It was reviewed pursuant to the
Intergovernmental agreement between Fort Collins and Larimer County. A
unique set of standards is applied to the Fossil Creek planning area, in that if
land is eligible for annexation, the development is reviewed by the County with a
specific set of standards to this area modeled after the Fort Collins Land Use
Code.
Annexation proceeds as soon as the property is eligible with a final PUD. The
subject property is subject to County SA or SA-1, low -density, but Fort Collins
has negotiated urban or high -density zoning. This involves using space to be
preserved elsewhere. This process is not applicable to the West Chase
annexation, since the annexation is already approved. The parcel that had the
transferred development rights was pointed out to the Board.
On the map, the pink areas with available development rights were displayed.
The development rights are transferred to the areas in yellow. Pictures were
displayed of the affected areas.
In response to questions by the Board, Staff stated that 20 acres of land rights
were transferred to development areas on the West Chase project. About 400
acres have been saved on the PDU program. Mr. Colton stated his wish for
further review at a work session.
Project: Johnson Property Rezoning and Structure Plan
Amendment, #32-01
Project Description: Request to rezone a 226-acre parcel east of
Timberline Road and north of Drake Road.
The property was zoned T, Transition upon
annexation in 1997. There are 4 proposed
zone districts for the property, UE, Urban
Estate, LMN, Low Density Mixed -Use
Neighborhood, MMN Medium Density Mixed -
Use Neighborhood and I, Industrial Zone
District. The applicant is proposing to amend
the Structure Plan to remove the Industrial and
Neighborhood Commercial Center
Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat
Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon
Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson
Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss
Phone: (H) 484-2034
Phone: (W) 416-7431
Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.
Roll Call: Craig, Torgerson, Bernth, Carpenter, Colton and Gavaldon.
Member Meyer was absent.
Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Olt, Jones, Barkeen, Wamhoff, K. Moore,
Virata, McWilliams, Brooks, Reavis, D. Moore, Wilder, and Deines.
Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the
Consent and Discussion Agendas:
Consent Agenda:
1.
Minutes of the November 16, 2000 (Continued), June 21,
and July 19, 2001 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings.
2.
Resolution PZ01-06 — Easement Vacation.
3.
#7-820
Collindale Business Park, 6th Filing, Lot 1, GK Gymnastics —
Project Development Plan.
4.
#26-97A
Pedersen Auto Plaza Expansion — Major Amendment.
5.
#19-01
Westchase No. 1 — Annexation & Zoning
6.
#19-01A
Westchase No. 2 — Annexation & Zoning
Discussion Agenda:
7.
#32-01
Johnson Property Rezoning & Structure Plan Amendment
8.
#34-01
450 North College Rezoning
Moved by Mr. Bernth, seconded by Mr. Colton: To approve Items 1, 2, 3, 4
on the consent agenda, excepting the minutes of 11/16/00, and including
items 5 and 6. Motion approved unanimously.